Memeorandum

March 23, 2008

Pardon My Paranoia

The FT has an interesting article (by Christopher Caldwell of the weekly Standard) about race relations in the US; his launch point was the Obama speech, but we ended up here:

A very interesting book published this week shows why. In Racial Paranoia
(Basic Books, $26/£15.99), the University of Pennsylvania
anthropologist John L. Jackson Jr suggests that extravagant theories of
white racism – from the widespread Aids rumour to Louis Farrakhan’s
allegation that the US actually blew up the levees to cause the deadly
New Orleans floods during Hurricane Katrina – have their roots in the
decorous language that mostly white leaders have invented for talking
about race.

The US has not managed to eliminate racism, Mr
Jackson thinks, but it has succeeded in eliminating racist talk.
Remarks the slightest bit “insensitive” draw draconian punishment.
White people, because they feel thoroughly oppressed by this regime,
assume that it must be some kind of “gift” to minorities, especially
blacks.

It is not. It is more like a torment. It renders the
power structure more opaque to blacks than it has ever been, leaving
what Mr Jackson calls a “scary disconnect between the specifics of what
gets said and the hazy possibilities of what kinds of things are truly
meant”. If the historic enemies of your people suddenly began talking
about you in what can fairly be called a secret code, how inclined
would you be to trust in their protestations of generosity?

This
is the core of the problem Mr Obama aims to address. Bringing
subterranean racial narratives into the light of day, where they can be
debated openly, is a risk. Although the early news coverage of his
speech has been positive, polls appear show that what Americans most
want from Mr Obama is a simple demonstration that he is not like Rev
Wright.

As an example of the PC police in action we need look no further than my previous post. "Old Punk" of the InstaPunk crowd posted his thoughts on why specific behaviors of a specific subset of the black community annoys him [that is a willfully generous but defensible characterization - see below]. Frankly, there is very little in his post I would be inclined to defend, but I would be very curious to learn how widely held his viewpoints might be. As an example, I would guess his aversion to the hip-hop gangsta sub-culture is widely shared.

Well. Rather than trying to look for the message in his message, the Usual Suspects, led by Glenn Greenwald, seized on the offensive sections as an opportunity to brand Glenn Reynolds and the entire conservative movement as racists.

So let me summarize the exchange:

Obama: We should have a national conversation about race.

Old Punk: OK, here is what annoys me about some black people.

Lefties: The Old Punk is a racist, as are all righties.

One might well argue that this does discourage anything like a candid conversation.

BELOW: I assert that the Old Punk has problems with "specific behaviors of a specific subset of the black community". Does that square with this:

I don't hate black people. I can't pretend to be color-blind because
absolutely nothing in my culture will allow me to be. I admire Thomas
Sowell, Duke Ellington, Roberto Clemente, Muhammed Ali, Alexandre
Dumas, Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Count Basie, Tiger Woods, and
Bill Cosby. There are many others but that's a sampling of the famous
folks whose courage, genius, character, and achievements I would be
proud if I could get anywhere in the vicinity of. The bald truth of the
matter is that they're better than I am, and it doesn't arouse a
flicker of racial feeling in me to acknowledge it. They have enriched
and elevated my own experience of life.

On the other hand, I am sick to death of black people as a group. The
truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it?
I live in an eastern state almost exactly on the fabled Mason-Dixon
line. Every day I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to
their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees. I'm an old guy.
I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes. It's
impossible not to think the unthinkable N-Word when they roll up beside
you at a stoplight in their trashed old Hondas with 19-inch spinner
wheels and rap recordings that shake the foundations of the buildings.
It's like a broadcast dare: Go ahead! Call me a nigger! And then I'll
cap your ass.

There are black people he likes but he hates them as a group - what does that mean? I am opting for the notion that he objects to specific manifestations of a collective black culture, but folks intent on shutting down the dialogue will insist he just doesn't like all blacks.

...If Tom Maguire thinks that when Obama was writing his speech and
Caldwell was writing his piece, what they had in mind for a candid
discussion about race was a bunch of jackasses stating “Here is what I
hate about niggers,” then he probably really didn’t understand the
speech or the FT piece.

Hmm. I have put about as charitable interpretation on the Old Punk's tirade as I care to, but it does lend itself to a less nuanced summary.

Here is something from Instapunk's latest that I can definitely defend:

Black people are not the only U.S. immigrants who have ever had all the odds against them. And don't even dare to ask about the Jews black preachers hate so much. From the beginning and to this very day, they have prevailed against reverse Affirmative Action in all the top schools that granted entrance to the corridors of power. But you must know this. Why do all the politically correct leading lights hate them as much as the Palestinians do? Even though blacks owe their civil rights victories more to the Jews than to any other demographic or political group you can name.

I have my Ear to the ground in the Jewish community: if The Big O is nominated he is not going to get their votes (excepting the usual die hards). My 88 yo yellow dog Democrat mom will write in the RW - voting McCain is a bridge too far for her.

While I agree with the concept in the Marohasy interview, I disagree with the tone.

If we want to spread the word, then let's spread the scientific word, ie, sun cycle stuff, lateness of Cycle 24, length of cycle is more important than amplitude, sunspots, cosmic rays, lack of negative feedback in all GCMs, coming cooling period, charts, sites, articles, etc., rather than polemic.

We can share the giggles among ourselves 'til the time comes (soon) when we can pounce with shadenfreude on all our AGW proponent neighbors. :)

Well,leaving aside the Earth ain't yo momma,merely a piece of spacial detritus, would you explain how the human race is causing both warming and cooling at the same time,and how?
Answers on a bankers draft, Cheque,money order or fifty dollar bill to SCAM Environment.Please us one side only,you can use more than one sheet.

A simple way to disseminate the message is on the casual and personal level.When you meet a neighbour freezing in the street say,"Where's this Global Warming then",or "We seem to be getting the wrong sort of Global warming".
Surprising how many people have noticed.
Any dialogue of the type which started the French Revolution that can be applied th GW is useful.
"The IPCC flies to Bali whilst our children freeze" is nice.
"My mother can't afford to run the central heating but Fat Al runs his limo on polar bear oil".
My favourite is "2008 Frozen to Death".

Speaking of schadenfreode, isn't gavin a hoot? The desperation of the warmistas is evidence of their cognitive dissonance. Mahorasey's blog has the latest. Apparently she's been a skeptic of one sort or another for 20 years.
====================================

My favourite was from about six months ago when I started my latest tear about global cooling, I announced to my neighbor that the globe was cooling, and she came back without missing a beat with "No doubt".
=======================

Yes, Peter, I ran across that link several weeks ago, to my horror. But that is still just from a couple of years ago.

The origins of this 'madness of crowds' is going to keep sociologists of science busy for generations. Fundamentally, I think it most stemmed from a good intention of James Hansen, that is to save the world. But we know that the road to Hell, as well as to Paradise, is paved with good intentions. James Hansen has simply lost his way, and is now actively damaging the world and the people in it.

There is no question that it is important to keep the world as clean as possible, balanced against the needs of the creatures encaged. But CO2 probably has a minimal effect on climate. The ingrained belief that it is much greater, engrained foremost if not first in Hansen, and shortly thereafter taken up by Gore, both encouraged by a huge chorus of environmentalists, has created this massive popular delusion.

It's just wrong, however, and we are gradually figuring it out. I'm worried that science, and also environmentalism will take huge hits to their credibility as a consequence of this initially inadvertent hoax.

Misunderstanding of the effects of clouds modifying the influence of the sun has led to this great error in science.

I think I've never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
======================

"The Nightmare of Illumination: Jon Alter writes of his candidate (Obama) that '[even] if his legislative agenda founders, he might be able to help the nation raise its sights ...'

"'[P]residents must do more than rally the country enough to win backing in polls for a course of action. That's relatively easy. The hard part is using the bully pulpit to instruct and illuminate and rearrange our mental furniture. Every great president has been a captivating teacher. By talking honestly and intelligently about a subject that most Americans would rather ignore, Obama offered a preview of how he would perform as educator-in-chief. ... Barack Obama knows how to think big, elevate the debate and transport the public to a new place.'

"Hmmm. After last Tuesday, I'm not sure I want to be instructed and elevated any more by Prof. Obama. I'd kind of like to rearrange HIS mental furniture on welfare and affirmative action, where his vagueness suggests incoherence more than brilliance. Alter holds out the prospect that an Obama Presidency will not be four hears of merely winning 'backing in polls for a course of action'--oh no, that's easy!-- but ... well, four years of insufferable pedagogic condescension.

"And here I thought Hillary was the self-righteous scold. Obama lectures even when he's the one who's been called into the principal's office. Alter has presented the most compelling case for Al Gore I've read..."

Yes, Syl, and hydrocarbons are only a small part of it. Carbonates, also probably produced by life have sequestered far more carbon than the critters making hydrocarbons.

I've thought for awhile that life, by its action to virtually irreversibly sequester carbon, has kept us on the thin edge of glaciation for the last many millions of years. But is that exaggerating carbon's role in temperature? I don't know.

There is a fella, whose name escapes me now, whose thesis is that the development of agriculture and animal culture has kept us from already descending into an ice age. I don't think it is a broadly accepted thesis, but for sure, we teeter far more precariously on the brink of another ice age, than on the edge of the earth cooking all of its inhabitants.
==============================

Yes, fdcol63, that is the most disturbing bit about the ethics of so many of those avid for carbon encumbrances. They, the 'typical' ones, are usually urban elite who mistakenly believe, in their precious little bubbles, that they can survive the holocaust of long-term cooling.

What small effect on temperature that CO2 has, and what large effect as a fertilizer, will keep millions of people from starving and freezing if we are headed into long term cooling, but only if we don't encumber it. The poor and powerless(intended) will suffer most greatly, but it will effect us all.

"What really soured me on the whole environmental ethos was learning that Yellowstone is a super volcano and its 40,000 years overdue in a 600,000 year cycle.

Life as we know it is all going to go away anyway and there's nothing we can do about it."

This is true but if we can keep Obama or Hillary out of the Presidency it might keep life as we know it for at least 4 or 8 years, (or 30 depending on SCOTUS retirements), so I can't help but being focused on the extreme short term.

If anyone thinks that climatist have hijacked the thread,it should be born in mind that Fat Al is a Democrat as are Obama and Hillary Hillary "anti-christ" Clinton.
Democrats,as good socialists equate to carbon poverty for all.This would bring a disaster for industry and food production.The only way to survive will be to eat leftists,or Soylent Blue as it is known.

I would never want to be a preening, self-righeous prig, of course, but allow me to be so immodest as to announce that I have taken this pledge: I vow that every year for the remainder of my life, my carbon footprint will be smaller than that of Al Gore. What more could ever be expected of a responsible citizen?

I'll go a bit further: all those who don't join me in making this pledge are morally bankrupt.

"I'll go one further. When confronted by a 1000 lb. polar bear, I will perhaps provide him with a meal."

I'm only sorry I cannot match your selfless altruism.You have my utmost admiration,I hope, that if I do meet one, you will be with me.

The whole scam of carbon credits is brilliant,rationing and charging for something which doesn't exist,and government does not own.Of course the coming black market is a wonderful business opportunity for concerns like family businesses

The division in the Democratic Party is highlighted by the fact that just 71% of Democratic Primary voters now say they will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign. If Barack Obama is nominated, 64% of Democratic Primary voters are ready to vote for him. The way in which the Democratic Nomination is resolved will ultimately determine whether the nominee will enjoy stronger support from the party’s base.

I see the Detroit Free Press is calling for Kwame Kilpatrick to resign today. Its online and has a comments section. You want to see how this is playing in those crucial suburbs of Macomb and Oakland counties? Well here is one commenter there and there are others. Its got to be a nightmare for the Democrat Governor who does have the power to remove local officials but does not want to piss off blacks as a constituency.

I find it very hard to believe that the mayor keeps blaming the media and non-Detroiters for his troubles. It's not like the news agencies went to him and said "here you go Mr Mayor - we got Beatty all liquored up and she's waiting for you in your hotel room." How can he or anyone else believe he's been unjustly crucified? I guess it's because his team is saying the introduction of the text messages were illegal. Who cares how they were first introduced to the public. Fact is he was having an affair, fired some folks for investigating wrong doing, and tried to cover it all up for a mere drop in the bucket of 8.4 million. And last, I hear all the time that this is a Detroit thing and if you live in the suburbs - mind your own business. Up until recently, I worked in the city of Detroit and paid several thousands of dollars in Detroit income taxes. So maybe I don't have the write to vote, but my hard earned money helped pay for his wrong doings.
3/25/2008 11:39:00 AM

Mess with the staff and piss off some voters. Mess with their pocketbooks and piss most of them off. And then tell the suburbanites, many of whom must pay a Detroit income tax, to butt out honkie. I cant imagine elected Democrats sleeping well, this happening just as we are having our dialogue on race. Detroiters have been having a monologue on race for quite awhile now. Lets see if I am right about this being last straw.

Do you guys have a working understanding of why the democrats would be supporting FARC over the elected government in Columbia. The WSJ piece under my name talks about a congressperson in an adjacent district to me, so I'm trying to figure out why he would be doing this:

The conclusion from the WSJ:

"We think the documents reveal something else entirely: Some Democrats oppose the Colombia trade deal because they sympathize more with FARC's terrorists than with a U.S. antiterror ally."

RENO, Nev. (AP) - A new study predicts water circulation in Lake Tahoe is being dramatically altered by global warming, threatening the lake's delicate ecosystem and famed clear waters.

The University of California, Davis study said one likely consequence is warmer lake temperatures that will mean fewer cold-water native fish and more invasive species—like carp, large-mouth bass and bluegill.

FARC was originally a Marxist guerrilla group, before devolving into narco-terrorists. But they still maintain the Marxist background and pose a threat to Uribe's government.

Chavez is a socialist, and supports FARC's moves to oust Uribe on the common ground of Marxism. Chavez doesn't really care that FARC is socialist in name only, only that the outcome of Uribe being overthrown by FARC is that he (Chavez) will have greater influence in Colombia, and could potentially emplace a puppet socialist government (a la Bolivia).

Uribe is supported by President Bush. Chavez is opposed by President Bush.

Forget their politics (which is simply a front to gain legitimacy). FARC is fundamentally an international crime syndicate. Guns, drugs, human slaves, support to AQ and MS-13...every sort of vile and corrupt activity you can think of.

IOW, truly evil people. Make sure Sen. McGovern is aware of who he wants to dialogue with.

Having failed to convince the world that human-caused warming of the atmosphere is dangerous, IPCC has been casting around for new causes to espouse. A Royal Society of London report in 2005 on “Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide” has proved to be good feedstock, because of its claim that the average pH of the oceans will fall by 0.5 units by 2100 if global emissions keep rising at their current rate. That this estimate is known to be exaggerated by a factor of about 3 has not prevented the IPCC and others from recently publicizing the ocean acidification legend. Clearly, they now seek to move the epicentre of the climate scare from the atmosphere, which stubbornly refuses to warm, to the ocean, whose depths doubtless still contain many scientific surprises.

The roughly 50 computer experts and scientists who form the core advisory group for the IPCC’s stance must have realized for several years now that the game was up. There is indeed copious evidence that climate is changing, as it always has; and that natural biological and physico-chemical systems - again as always - are changing in response. But as to human causation – the evidential cupboard is bare.

For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, IPCC members have now entered panic mode, the whites of their eyes being clearly visible as they seek to defend their now unsustainable hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming.

To try to top “The Ring of the Niebelung”, composers after Wagner abandoned classical key structures and turned to the apparent aural chaos of atonalism. Similarly, to pursue the higher cause of saving the planet, the IPCC has now largely abandoned classical (empirical) science and adopted the sophistry of deterministic computer modelling. The result is neither melodious nor meaningful, let alone useful for sensible environmental planning. The time has surely arrived for the New Zealand government to commission an independent reassessment of the UN’s hysterical global warming scare.
_____________________________________________________________________________________